Press Release 06/10/14
UK Business Minister Finally Admits Carbon Taxes Are Damaging British Businesses
London, 6 October: The Global Warming Policy Forum has welcomed Vince Cable’s belated admission that the government’s climate policy is damaging British businesses.
Business secretary Vince Cable yesterday warned that Britain’s unilateral carbon tax is hampering UK businesses who are losing competitiveness to their counterparts abroad.
Of course it is not just the Carbon Floor Price that is driving up the cost of energy, but so are the ever rising subsidies for green energy which will amount to £8 billion p.a. by 2020.
Mr Cable is right to highlight the growing risk to British businesses that “are struggling against international competition because of the cost of energy.”
“At a time when most major economies are turning to cheap and abundant fossil fuels, Britain alone seems prepared to risk its economic competitiveness by adopting policies that are making energy ever more expensive,” said Dr Benny Peiser, the GWPF’s director.
“Given the manifest reluctance of major economies to follow Britain’s unilateral policy, the government should now suspend the fourth carbon budget and all post-2020 climate targets,” he added.
Why has the UK taken so long to finally acknowledge what was always so obvious to dangerous man-made global warming sceptics … that the Climate Change Act was, in effect, an ‘economic suicide note’?
The BBC which is rightly called the “Biased Broadcasting Company” on environmental issues virtually brainwashed the politicians into believing that the thousands of ordinary scientists and engineers who highlighted the issues were “deniers”.
Climate Change was an issue of making a much reduced British world power seem politically relevant on the world super power Chinese American Russian stage.
a “phantom” issue
Very similar to California’s fuel tax slated for 1 Jan that will raise fuel prices by @20%.
And where will this money stolen from the working man go? To subsidize the green energy billionaires of course.
Mervyn, the UK is far from repealing this ruinous legislation. Too many vested interests are filling their boots at the expense of others. This is known as corruption.
Because they have their collective heads up there arses!!
Dear Mervin: not that difficult: they (the british) practically invented global warming. Read the saga of the CRU.
‘The British practically invented global warming’ – but Al Gore wrote a scary book and made a film as well, didn’t he?
Unfortunately the vast majority of our politicians in the UK have fallen for it all, hook line and sinker. The reply to a letter I wrote to my Member of Parliament demonstrated clearly that she’d not read around the subject at all. She didn’t quote any figures or studies, but simply affirmed her faith in ‘renewables’.
Did we, the long suffering British public, ask for the frankly idiotic Climate Change Act? No, we didn’t.
Well, you got better ttreatment than I did. When, baclk in 2008, I wrote my MP a 9-page letter on the subject, pointing out the facts and giving copious references, he didn’t bother to reply at all.
Neil – regarding the lack of a reply from your MP – I didn’t mention that my correspondence was a ‘snail mail’ letter to my MP at the House of Commons, and I didn’t get a reply.
It wasn’t until I emailed her about eight weeks later that she responded.
I can only assume that she hadn’t got a clue as to how to reply to my comments and data, and simply hoped that I’d go away and forget about it.
There’s blame enough on both sides of the pond. You forget NASA and Hansen?
Why? Because modern Britain has voluntarily turned itself into a politically correct mire.
What? Carbon taxes damaging to the economy?!? Why, how many times have I been assured that carbon taxes and other similar measures would be a great boon to our economy, creating green jobs and industries and such? I mean, this just can’t be right.
Next they’ll be telling us Obamacare is hurting employment.
/ SARC
I thought an economic boom was virtually guaranteed, if we change to renewable sources of energy? All those thousands of jobs? Not to mention that countries all over the world would be spared the painful process of being dragged before an international court because of their damage to (future) humanity?
I’m sure Mr. Stern can supply some undeniable facts about this.
They have to FEEL the pain before they accept what is obvious to everyone else. Some economic damage is good, because it will ensure the Green agenda’s failure and final rejection.
Slow learners that only respond to popular pressure from the people…they would be wise to study the French Revolution.
I doubt he’s the first one to say it and I’m certain he’s not the first to have thought it, but the following quote is usually attributed to Everett Dirkson:
If Douglas Carswell is voted in as UKIP MP for Clacton on 9th September & Mark Reckless is also successful for UKIP in Rochester, then the electorate may conclude that voting for UKIP at the general election on 7th May 2015 is a sensible choice. The LimpDems are almost certain to be annihilated, which means a coalition between UKIP & the Conservative Party would see the Climate Change Act repealed. Ok, Ok,, I’m probably living in cloud cuckoo land, but a chap can dream can’t he?
Perry
You are, since unfortunately UKIP will split the conservative vote so that even if UKIP win a few seats they will cause the conservative party to lose more seats than UKIP gain, such that a coalition between conservatives and UKIP will not lead to a majority.
At the last election UKIP wanted to abolish the Climate Change Act and serverly reduce overseas aid which would have resulted in savings of somewhere between GPB12 to 20 billion per year (depending upon source figures) and they would have used that saving to reduce/pay down the deficit.
This was a most sensible policy (in fact the only sensible proposal put forward by any political party for dealing with the deficit) and had the coalition adopted that policy in 2010, the deficit could have been paid down within the current Parliament, or at any rate by 2016/7. This policy, even if short term, would have freed the reigns for future governments (whatever their colour), and should have been adopted as an expedient even if it went against the political grain of coalition politics. As it is, the UK has only paid down about 30% of the deficit, and there is another 10 years of pain left to balance the books (more if labour get back into power), in fact they might never be balanced if the doomsayers are right about the extent of problems of an ageing and obese population come home to roost, and the star in the East rises..
Unfortunately, there is insufficient time for the main stream political parties to roll back from the green agenda before the 2015 elections. The UK faces at least one further Parliamentary term of green policies, by which time a lot more damage will have been inflicted. One can only hope for very severe winters for the next few years and rolling brown outs to wake up the political class to see what is really happening. Nasty as that may be, it is the only way that a brake will quickly be applied, and possibility of policy reversals.
Perhaps richard verney, but the party that will suffer most next time is the Lib Dems.
Who will get their seats? In most places it is the Tories as most Lib Dem voters would already vote Labour (to keep the Tories out) if they were willing to vote Labour at all. Ed Miliband is not likely to inspire them to take the plunge so the Lib Dem Voters stay home – Tory seats.
However, there is a third option to Labour or Tory for disenchanted Lib Dem voters in England (SNP and PC are left wing enough for the Celts).
The Lib Dems could turn to the Green Party. They already have Brighton Pavilion and will probably get Norwich next time at least.
I predict – using the same argument you gave for voting Tory not UKIP – that everyone should vote Labour not Green in order to stop that Red/Green coalition from taking power and pulling the Labour party that way.
Or… just vote for who you actually do most agree with and maybe even campaign for them.
Tactical voting is impossible this time.
>>unfortunately UKIP will split the conservative vote.
Perhaps. But UKIP may also split the Labour vote too. There are an awful lot of Labour supporters, who feel abandoned by their party, who let in cheap foreign labour to take their jobs and reduce their wages. Doorstep polling indicates that many of these voters are turning to UKIP.
And since UKIP have just produced a (semi) glossy DVD and web video, pointing out the many deficiencies and evils of wind power, I think Green Energy will be dead in the water, if UKIP get a significant proportion of the vote.
Here is the UKIP energy policy, for 2014.
http://www.ukipmeps.org/uploads/file/energy-policy-2014-f-20-09-2013.pdf
Ralph
P.S.
You will note that the UKIP energy policy has a couple of cartoons by Josh in it. And the policy also mentions Thorium. Now come on, on a matter of sheer principle, We should vote for UKIP simply because they knew about and mentioned Thorium Power. What other politician in the UK, would have a clue what Thorium refered to?
Ralph
You seem to be confusing ‘debt’ with ‘deficit’. The so called ‘austerity government’ is still running a current account deficit so that the country’s overall debt is still increasing month by month. So in effect, to pay overseas aid we are borrowing money to give it away. Try running that past a bank manager or financial investor as a sound business plan.
Scrapping overseas aid until we can afford to be generous (if really needed) would pay for scrapping stamp duty on property to get the market moving better and scrapping inheritance tax so that the funds are recycled back through the economy to increase employment and GDP (hence tax income).
Sadly we might have to endure a Labour government and economic collapse in order for the Tories to lynch Call Me Dave and all the other liberals and emerge as a truly conservative party again with a pro-business, pro-capitalism, pro-personal liberty and responsibility, no green rubbish and out of the EU outlook to emerge. Or some form of UKIP-true conservative party.
“Given the manifest reluctance of major economies to follow Britain’s unilateral policy…”
Actual audio from a few years ago…
China: you guys are going to start taxing carbon? That’s so cool & progressive. Wish we had that much control over our system, we’d totally do that.
India: Yeah, you guys are going to take all that money and invest in clean E and in a few years we’ll be like all, WHAAAAAT? We’re so totally behind! No way we’ll catch up now.
China & India grin while exchanging double backslap fist bump & blow it up handshake.
What’s does the spider say in one of those Harry Potter Films – “How can I deny such a willing meal to my children”?
The UK government, virtually handed over UK manufacturing to China and then kicked what was left in the balls with higher prices. And now we are tens of billions in debt and the madmen party leaders are running a competention to see who can pledge the biggest give-away at the next election.
But the UK Government has been saying for years that the carbon taxes are building the jobs of tomorrow – giving us a head start for when the gas runs out.
A little pain now and it’s jam tomorrow. Fossil fuels only have about 10 or 20 years left, don’t you know. Gas will get rarer and rarer and pricier and pricier and we will be grateful to these taxes for forcing us the right way.
Lord Stern also assures us that the costs of these taxes is far less than adapting to the relentless warming of the last 15 years.
So there is no need to suspend the budget. We are outwitting those foolish, growth-obsessed Orientals.
(And it was an acromantula /nerd)
Sorry Antony to go off topic but staying-inside the UK.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2782135/Could-CLIMATE-CHANGE-determine-sex-child-Warmer-temperatures-linked-rise-baby-girls-born.html#comments
Latest piece of Climate Alarmism pap .Interesting Mail on Sunday reporter David Rose was at the great Climate versus Skeptic Dinner party in Bath and over their Roast Beef /Salmon summit.Discussing ways of reducing damaging Sensationalist Alarmis in the Climate Debate and the Daily Mail publishes this rubbish.
For the record the gender unbalance is actually caused by increased levels of Estrogen from the female Contraceptive Pill entering the water supply via the urinal tract.
Politicians finally grudgingly recognizing De-Carbonation is damaging the British Economy.Looking forward to winter powers cuts followed by Cameron/ Milliband 2015 election.
But we were told ……
With the loss of how many conventional jobs?
Oh, I found the ‘green’ jobs being created by the UK. They are being created abroad along with pollution and co2 output. Why was this not seen as a crazy plan? I hear the UK imports wood chips from the USA to burn in power stations instead of coal with the aim of reducing the UK’s co2 emissions. This is another cunning plan opposed by environmentalists.
That’s because the EPA here in the US is getting ready to ban wood burning stoves so those folks are looking for markets for their products. Who could possibly think that it is wise or efficient energy policy to ship wood across the Atlantic to be used as heating fuel? The madness is growing exponentially.
The current destruction ratio is every green ‘job’ destroys 3.4 real jobs.
If Britain really wanted to curb energy-by-carbon use, it could impose an across the board tax such that no one industry was affected, and focus the money on – at taxpayers’ expense – replacing the fossil fuel sources. This would make BRITAIN an expensive place to live and work, but not particularly hard on the high-use industries. Of course, a program to counter increased taxation with decreased taxation in other areas, or decreased government costs in general, would help, but now we have two things that the regulating class won’t stand for: increased personal cost and smaller government.
The idea that hammering high-use industries creates incentives for low-use solutions has been proven false. Same with subsidies for intermittent energy sources as a way to bring innovative ways to make them cost-competitive. Some things are just expensive even if you really, really want them, and some things you just can’t afford, even if you really, really want them.
We aren’t the first society to spend its way to oblivion. More primitive societies like the Mayan expanded too far to withstand natural climate variability and collapsed when the weight of their lives exceeded the carrying capacity of their environment. The Eco-greens are encouraging the death of the highest standard of living by advocating the very thing that got us here. It would be nice if they would at least live the low-energy life they wish the rest of the world would adopt.
Globalisation!!.
UK industry is competing with other industries, not in the UK, but in other countries which have lower energy costs. Therefore the UK cannot level the playing field by increasing taxation, only by lowering costs/taxation.
Many high energy intensive industries are relocating abroad simply because of energy costs.
Even Germany is seeing this, their major petro-chemical companies are relocating to the States (because of low energy costs from shale).
This results in loss of tax revenues, higher unemployment resulting in higher welfare expenditure etc.
The developed world are technology junkies which means that we are all energy junkies..What is needed is low cost energy, and there is no significant reason why we cannot have low cost energy, High cost energy is simply a facet of political decisions, not the availability of resources and cost of getting them to market.
The green energy revolution will create jobs and cheap, almost free energy. Hey, the sun’s light is free and what about free wind. It will all be too cheap to meter. Win win situation.
15 September 2014
MPs urge Government to revive failing Green Deal energy efficiency scheme
14 March 2013
Germany’s Green Energy Disaster: A Cautionary Tale For World Leaders
20 Oct, 2012
List: 36 Of Obama’s Taxpayer-Funded Green Energy Failures
Political suicide in the UK?
It is being followed in the USA, seeking consolation in good company.
Spain used to be shown as the example to follow. Now, not so often.
Wonders to behold, a Business Minister realizing that disrupting the market by intervention of central planning gives you a disrupted marketplace. Where enough business uncertainty is created by government that normal market calculation is marginalized or paralyzed so as to prevent reasonable risk management.
John
“business uncertainty is created by government”, Milton Friedman would agree.
See “‘Free To Choose’ (1980) a TV Series by Milton Friedman”, at http://miltonfriedman.blogspot.com/
– – – – – – – –
Andres Valencia,
Yes, as did H.L. Mencken, L. von Mises and F.A. Hayek. There are seeds of it in Henry Hazlitt thinking as well.
John
Yes, and Frédéric Bastiat. See http://bastiat.org/en/
Good grief.
Next thing we know Mr. Cameron will announce that CO2 is beneficial to all living things and is to be encouraged.
Well. can’t I live in hope?
and will insist father in law will pay to return land bespoiled by thousands of tons of concrete used in windmill bases be returned to original state out of his profits from subsidies.
If only someone had warned that nice Mr Cable that ‘renewable’ energy isn’t quite so jolly super as the salesman had said it is. I wonder if anyone had mentioned that to Cable, Cameron, Clegg, Miliband, Huhne, Davey etc etc etc….?
The green energy revolution will create jobs and cheap, almost free energy. Hey, the sun’s light is free and what about free wind. It will all be too cheap to meter. Win win situation.
They said the same thing about nuclear. back in the ’50s
There is no chance whatsoever that any of the current political imbeciles of the 3 main parties will back down over their green nonsense. They are oblivious to the damage they cause or delusional as in the case of Ed Davey. Vote UKIP, they won’t get elected but in the future who knows, maybe just maybe. For non UK readers who have not had the pleasure of trying to understand the delusional mind of Ed Davey, try this link.
http://www.edwarddavey.co.uk/web/?q=aggregator/sources/6
Most of our Polititians have never run anything that involved using their own money, and are slow on the uptake and some are a trifle dim.
And they are the clever ones.
But maybe just street smart – “If I can surreptitiously mug these voters for a billion or so, I’m sure some will stick to my friends/cronies/oligarchs/fellow Mafiosi – and some will bounce back to me in future [jobs for the wife, kids, domestic pets, etc.].”
You fill my pockets, and I’ll fill yours.
Of course, some – a few, probably, but maybe only a few – are truly trying to do the best they can for – here – the United Kingdom. Others, less so . . . . .
Seems the standards of probity in public life are not what they were in the 1950s and 1960s, when many MPs, Labour or Tory, had been under arms, to fight Hitler and pals. Denis Healey [whose politics weren’t, and aren’t, mine] had, as a .Major in – I think – the Royal Artillery, been a Beachmaster at the Anzio landings.
Nowadays, we have MacShane, Huhne and – slightly differently – Carswell.
We get the ‘leaders’ (if that is not to overstate the matter) we vote for.
Auto.
I don’t care who wins the next general election so long as the next government takes the UK out of the EU and repeals the Climate change act. Fed up seeing and hearing sanctimonious middle class white wummin banging on about ‘Saving the Planet’ whilst their elderly ‘Sisters’ are dying of cold or living in poverty.
Not sure you have too many options for that agenda.
Probably best not to vote Green.
It’s not just the UK that is in trouble. All across Europe ever growing debt and deficits are choking economic growth. Interest rates have been reduced about as far as they can go. The EU cannot print money as the US is doing (it’s illegal there) so it is caught between a rock and a hard place. Europe’s energy policies and green subsidies are killing jobs and consumer spending. Politicians who favored these policies should be going to jail for gross incompetence.
The next shoe to drop will be people dying from cold due to unavailable or too costly energy. All the marketing and media in the world won’t stop people from realizing they’ve been fed a load of crap. Unfortunately it takes extremes before most get involved enough to understand how the greens are attacking societies.
Here is the UKIP energy policy, for 2014. You will note it is hugely anti-renewable energy. It also has a couple of cartoons by Josh in it.
http://www.ukipmeps.org/uploads/file/energy-policy-2014-f-20-09-2013.pdf
The UKIP energy policy also mentions Thorium power, making UKIP the only party and the only politicians, who know what on earth Thorium is. I think UKIP should get our vote on that basis alone. A polititical party that understands Thorium? Got to be a first, surely…
Ralph
Its not the taxes that destroy value, its spending on low value projects at the same time as “managing energy prices”.
If CA were to tax the people 20% extra on petrol but spend it on better more efficient roads it may well have benefit, but we all know it will slide into some “pork belly projects”.
We all pay taxes the key issue is that they the rulers spend in a way that reflects economic and social goals of a society.
The problem with the CAGW game is that in addition to the direct subsidies on economic non starters there are also price increases on conventional businesses through programs of economic redirection. Electric prices as an example.
We in New Zealand are “celebrating” the imminent departure of an aluminum smelter with the production then likely to be transferred to a coal fired producer. All because we now embrace wind and solar which clearly generate at a cost that precludes base load users. Simply daft!
There are a couple of posts above which assume that UKIP is a right wing party. Let me, as a UKIP county councillor, disagree. In general we tackle (or, more likely, try to get those in power to tackle) the problem in front of us. This makes us a mixture — housing needs ‘left wing’ solutions, education needs some of the right wing fiddling to be abandoned, armed services need major help (the lack of long-range strike assets when the Tornados are retired is so obvious I’m surprised even cast iron Dave hasn’t noticed), English votes for English matters in Parliament…. etc. The big one is energy — nothing is so important. Tax the windmills and solar farms, frack and drill, put research into thorium reactors (Candu reactors can, I believe, run on thorium), stop the tx on carbon dioxide emissions and save the money being wasted on sequestration.
The analysis that we will split the Right is therefore faulty. For example, how will the good people of Haverhill vote? Well, this has generally been a Labour town, but the last election for a borough councillor gave UKIP a winning vote of 64%. Polls suggest we get 83 Labour voters for every 100 Cons. Libdems are an odd bunch, probably destined to move to the Greens and keep on swallowing every climate change lie they can strain at.
As an ex-serviceman I’ve generally been a Con voter, but I looked at the empty suit they put up as a leader and realised that the world had changed. Vote for Labour? Let me tell you about Labour. In a full council meeting they voted against releasing brownfield land owned by the council in order to build social housing, taking the pressure off the poorest and weakest members of our society. Party of the working man? They wouldn’t recognise a working man if he licked their Foster and Son bespoke shoes.
I could go on. And on. It’s about this stage that the rest of the UKIP councillors sidle away and I begin to rant. Let me spare you that.
JF
Julian Flood:
Good luck with your mixed platform, but this requires the voter to adopt a new viewpoint, seemingly.
The GWPF is a lobby organisation promoting the fossil fuel industry and opposing renewables – because of the economic competition.
So the news that “GWPF Calls On Government To Suspend Fourth Carbon Budget” is hardly surprising.
You would not expect them to say anything else.
UKIP have a lot in common with the GWPF – the bias towards fossil fuels, the bias against renewables (even when proven to work) and the lack of scientific credibility.
James Abbott
The GWPF is not “a lobby organisation promoting the fossil fuel industry” but it does oppose so-called renewables such as windfarms because their only function is to be subsidy farms.
I oppose both UKIP and your Green Party which each has as much “scientific credibility” as the other; i.e. none. However, political parties require policies and not “scientific credibility”. UKIP has a sensible Energy Policy and your Green Party has an insane Energy Policy.
Richard
Richard
Please explain then, if I am so wrong, why the GWPF has published articles (many hundreds of them over recent years) which almost without exception:
(a) promote the use of fossil fuels
(b) oppose renewables
(c) oppose nuclear
I am intrigued that you think Green policies on energy are “insane”.
So it is apparently “insane” to:
Reduce fossil fuel use (finite, will run out)
Increase the use of renewables (by definition will not run out)
Become far more energy efficient (keeps costs down, reduces fuel poverty and reduces the need for new capacity)
That’s an interesting definition of sanity you have.
James Abbott
October 6, 2014 at 2:50 pm
Because your demand for “renewables” is killing people right now.
24,000 in the UK last winter alone.
Add a 2-4% reduction or impact on the economy because of your deliberately politicized demand for increased energy prices, and you are killing more due to stress and unneeded worries and poor conditions.
But YOU demand the world kill people and harm innocents, on the assumption that maybe, perhaps, some unknown time in the future there might be a reason to change energy policies because some people somewhere somehow in the far future might be impacted. Might have to move. Maybe.
So, your conclusion? We must kill tens of thousands of people now, every year for the next 86 years, just so you feel better.
James Abbott
I answer each of your points addressed to me in turn.
I answer:
I am not aware that GWPF opposes nuclear power but everybody with any sense desires continued use of reliable, efficient and cheap fossil fuels and opposes adoption of intermittent, inefficient and expensive so-called renewables.
You continue
Of course they are insane. They intend to reduce use of reliable, efficient and cheap fossil fuels while increasing use of intermittent, inefficient and expensive so-called renewables which would condemn many UK people to death from fuel poverty and would make impossible much of British industry. That is more insane than Jack The Ripper who killed much fewer people than the energy policies of the Green Party would.
And you demonstrate the insane reasons for those insane policies by writing
Fossil fuels will not “run out” for centuries if ever, and if they were going to “run out” then there would be no purpose in a policy to enforce their disuse.
Renewables will “run out” every time the wind blows at the wrong speed during the night.
The ‘renewable’ subsidy farms are – of course – extremely efficient at ripping-off the public, but it is a physical impossibility for them to provide an efficient energy supply. Indeed, they increase costs and so fuel poverty while requiring additional generating capacity to perform their back-up.
The Green Party energy policy is insane because it is intended to deliberately increase costs and to kill people for no purpose and for no benefit. By comparison, you members of the Green Party make Jack The Ripper seem like a nice guy.
Richard
James,
your “big oil shill” type smear against GWPF is pointless. No better than Peter Gleick’s foolish forgery against Heartland in the US.
You don’t understand why it is pointless because you are a collectivist. You don’t understand that there is no fossil fuel funded “core” to the sceptic movement. Those organisations are getting their information from us, individual sceptics. You and your fellow travellers have been using centrally planned “astroturfing” for years; now you are faced with a genuine “grass roots movement” and you are going to lose.
As I pointed out previously, Big Wind will be the first to fall. The collapse of this sorry pyramid selling scheme is well under way in Australia. In the news today, the Union movement, whose “investments” were used to “salt the mine”, has had to admit to massive losses. The private investors are fleeing. The UK will be next.
Big Wind was never “renewable”, it was a subsidy farming pyramid scheme. And the thing with pyramid schemes is no next layer and they collapse. No bleating about finite fossil fuels or energy security can save them. They need CO2 to be the demon, as it is the only thing that could vaguely justify the insane cost and environmental destruction of the bird blenders.
As a collectivist, guess what you will be doing next? The anti shale gas propaganda is failing. Where is Big Wind going to put its millions of propaganda dollars? It’s back to “ocean acidification” propaganda, because that keeps CO2 the demon. Will environmentalists accept the “free lunch” from Big Wind? I hear they are serving Fetid Lucre Salad, lightly drizzled with the blood of endangered species. Delicious!
Nature and history determine. Not man
RACookPE1978
I have no idea what you are ranting about.
A key Green policy is to end fuel poverty by properly insulting homes.
High energy prices are largely due to the market.
The UK had one of the worst excess winter death rates in Europe long before renewables started to be developed at commercial scale because of grossly inadequate building standards over many decades.
James Abbott
People freeze in insulated houses that lack heating.
Richard
Richard, I am sure, got it right – ‘insulated’, not ‘insulted’.
Hey – I do typos, two.
But, yes, poor, or elderly, and especially poor AND elderly folk in the UK – worst in the North: Scotland, and the NE and NW, but throughout the UK, which is 99.9% N of Fifty Degrees North, and the Northern-most of all the Great Lakes is forty miles south of the Southern-most part of the British Isles – have died, are dying, and – it appears, James, with Green policies – will continue to die, if they have to make a choice between eating and heating, because they simply cannot afford both.
Auto
James Abbott says:
A key Green policy is to end fuel poverty by properly insulting homes.
Abbott has inadvertently explained how the eco-crowd thinks. Windmills are an insult to homes.
[BTW, Robert Cook is exactly right. ‘Green’ policies kill. That’s a fact.]
Well its difficult to have a sensible debate with people who think fossil fuels are never going to run out (Doh !) and who also seriously think that policies to help people keep their homes warmer are “killing” them – and who throw Jack the Ripper in there as well !
I could write any old **** to match that in reply but back in the real world, I would rather save the energy !
In order to save energy, you must have some energy in the first place.
On a dark midwinter’s anticyclonic night, the Green Energy system will have NO energy. And therefore all the insulation in the world will keep nobody warm save no energy. And people and industry will suffer.
Perhaps you like making people suffer. Some people do.
Ralph
You have in your shale in GB a huge bounty of natural gas, the cleanest of fuels, according to a recent report. Just think James Abbot, there is energy enough to heat all the homes in GB for several hundred years, and quite cheaply. All will benefit. Does not that make you glad? Or do you gnash your teeth at the idea?..
Seems that Abbot is gnashing his teeth in silence.
Nobody says never. Insulating a home while removing the heat source is …..to borrow from another poster….burning the village to save it.
James,
we all want a cleaner more efficient energy future, but if you want a sensible debate you need to acknowledge that this cannot be built on a foundation of lies.
Quite simply CO2 cannot cause global warming. Sure, some folk, both sceptic and warmist, are trying to engineer a “soft landing” for the hoax. But this is never going to work. The news that there is actually no NET radiative GHE on this ocean planet will eventually get out. AGW was just not physically possible.
There is no future for Big Wind or large scale PV solar subsidy farmers. They cannot survive the building public rage. Playing “issue fade and replace” with “fossil fuel depletion” will just add to that rage. You fellow travellers must admit fault and apologise for their crazy assault on science, freedom and democracy before we can move on.
Shale gas, combined cycle base load turbines and open cycle peaking turbines give plenty of time for economic renewable technologies to be developed. But they must be work, both economically and environmentally. The subsidy farming game must end.
PS. James, what will you do when you are asked by Big Wind to keep their pyramid scheme going with “ocean acidification” propaganda? The right thing, or the wrong thing?
James Abbott
You addressed a host of points to me and I answered each of them. Failing an ability to refute any of my answers you have responded saying in total
You could “match that in reply”? Really? Then why don’t you support your Political Party’s insane energy policies instead of providing the sour grapes saying you would “rather save the energy”?
And of my two points you choose to answer you misrepresent one one and fail to answer the other.
I wrote
That says two things; viz.
(a) alternatives to fossil fuels may be obtained in the centuries before they “run out”,
and
(b) if fossil fuels were about to “run out” then it would be pointless to enforce their disuse which will happen anyway.
You have admitted that the insane Green Party energy policy ignores those realities and pretends that “fossil fuels are … going to run out”. Harmful action taken in response to an imaginary reality is delusional insanity.
I wrote of the Green Party energy policies
your reply to that says in total
Thankyou for providing a quote that can be used to show how a Green Party spokesman agrees that Green Party energy policies are more insane than Jack The Ripper.
Richard
The Mad Monk writes:- “I could write any old **** “.
You do, old boy!!!
The BBC which is rightly called the “Biased Broadcasting Company” on environmental issues virtually brainwashed the politicians into believing that the thousands of ordinary scientists and engineers who highlighted the issues were “deniers”.
The political classes did not need brainwashing. Most of them are actually descended from the old aristocratic classes and have retained the attitudes of the Victorian era. Even in the 20th Century the aristocracy would visit “trade” but never stay in their houses. Churchill famously said engineers should be on tap, not on top, before proceeding to ignore their advice and destroy the basis of British electronics after the war.
Most of the opposition to climate scientists came from engineers who said the Fourier analysis did not show the facile pattern predicted by the scientists who were using methods dated even in the very early nineteenth century for their predictions of normality hence the class snobbery that allowed the engineers advice to be ignored.
People really have no clue what’s going on…
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=316&Itemid=50
I’d laugh my head off it wasn’t so serious.
James Abbott says:
UKIP have a lot in common with the GWPF…
Thanks for making it clear that this is politics to you. For the rest of us, this is a science discussion.
Next, your complete non sequitur says:
Well its difficult to have a sensible debate with people who think fossil fuels are never going to run out…
The point, which you studiously ignored as you tried to re-frame the debate, is that the policies you prefer would cause massive deaths among the poorest of the world. You don’t seem to care.
Your “green” policies would kill people. That is a fact.
Conversely, the burning of fossil fuels has added beneficial CO2 to the biosphere, which in turn has reised agricultural productivity by anywhere from 11% on the low side, to as much as 26% since 1990. That, in turn, has caused the price of food to decline due to the iron law of supply and demand.
But your preference is to reduce fossil fuel use, which in turn would decrease the concentration of harmless, beneficial CO2, which would then result in a lower food supply. That would kill people. Starvation is an excruciating way to die, and that is what “green” policies would bring about.
Not that you care.